Cole vs Knipp, et al
Filing
37
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/9/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6 , 8 ) is granted. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. The complaint (and the intended ame ndments thereto, see ECF Nos. 1 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ), is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiffs requests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 12 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 27 , and 28 ) are DENIED. Clerk of the Court shall terminate all outstanding motions.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
JEFFREY COLE,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. 2:14-cv-1898-EFB P
v.
KNIPP, Warden, et al.,
14
ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Defendants.
15
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42
16
17
U.S.C. § 1983.1 In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in
18
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He has also filed no fewer than fourteen requests to
19
amend or otherwise supplement his complaint and seven requests for appointment of counsel.
20
His numerous requests are accompanied by hundreds of miscellaneous exhibits and attachments.
21
22
I.
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).
23
Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect
24
and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C.
25
§ 1915(b)(1) and (2).
26
27
28
1
This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local
Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
1
1
II.
Requirement and Standards
2
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
3
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
5
of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
6
relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
7
relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
8
9
A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and
10
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
11
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
12
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).
13
While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8,
14
its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
15
U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
16
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked
17
assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
18
action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
19
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
20
678.
21
Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility.
22
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
23
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
24
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a
25
claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v.
26
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the
27
plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
28
/////
2
1
III.
2
Screening Order
It appears from plaintiff’s excessive filings that he wishes to amend or add to his
3
complaint in a piecemeal fashion through separate filings. This, however, is not the proper
4
procedure for amending a complaint.2 Plaintiff may not amend his complaint in a piecemeal
5
fashion by filing separate documents that are intended to be read together as a single complaint.
6
If plaintiff wishes to add, omit, or correct information in the operative complaint, he must file an
7
amended complaint that is complete within itself. This is because an amended complaint
8
supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the earlier filed
9
complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467,
10
1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated
11
thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)). Plaintiff’s
12
complaint (and the intended amendments thereto) is therefore dismissed with leave to amend in
13
accordance with the requirements set forth in this order.
14
When a plaintiff is allowed to amend his complaint, he must write or type the amended
15
complaint so that it is complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint. L.R.
16
220. That is, plaintiff must file a single amended complaint that includes all information relevant
17
to his claim(s).
18
Any amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each
19
defendant, and must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a
20
substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d
21
740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if
22
he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do
23
that causes the alleged deprivation). Any amended complaint must also contain a caption
24
including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
25
/////
26
27
28
2
In addition, plaintiff is hereby informed that the court is not a repository for his evidence
and he shall not file documentary evidence in support of his claims unless it is necessary for the
resolution of a motion.
3
1
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1)
2
that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the
3
alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
4
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the
5
facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal
6
connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.
7
See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44
8
(9th Cir. 1978).
9
Plaintiff is cautioned that he not join unrelated claims against different defendants in a
10
single complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). The controlling principle
11
appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as
12
alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple
13
claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with
14
unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in
15
different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit
16
produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation
17
Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without
18
prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
19
Cir. 2007).
20
Although plaintiff’s allegations are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
21
drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), plaintiff is
22
required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern
23
District of California. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (procedural
24
requirements apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access to counsel); L.R. 183(a)
25
(“Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal
26
Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law.”).
27
/////
28
/////
4
1
IV.
2
Requests for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require
3
counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist.
4
Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney
5
to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935
6
F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
7
When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the
8
likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro
9
se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
10
(9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional
11
circumstances in this case.
12
V.
Summary of Order
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 6, 8) is granted.
15
Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in accordance
16
with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
17
filed concurrently herewith.
18
2.
The complaint (and the intended amendments thereto, see ECF Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9,
19
10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35), is dismissed with leave to amend within
20
30 days. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled
21
“First Amended Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order may result in this action being
22
dismissed for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable
23
claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal.
24
3.
25
28) are denied.
26
/////
27
/////
28
Plaintiff’s requests for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 12, 18, 21, 22, 27, and
/////
5
1
2
4. The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all outstanding motions.
Dated: March 9, 2015.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?